My hypothetical scenario gave plenty of information for any betting man. My money would be on the guy who ate carbs over the guy who ate nothing or the guy who ate sugar - and I would have a sound biochemical rationale for why.
That sound biochemical rationale was behind my illustrative point about ‘carbo loading’ vs ‘sugar loading’. Sorry you gained so little by my pointing out this fundamental difference.
You could go one step further...
Suppose one contestant ate pasta for a month, and the other ate mostly meat and a small salad for a month, then both loaded up with pasta the night before a marathon?
Different from the requirements of a hundred yard dash.
Actually, your hypothetical scenario didn’t give enough info.
Take an athlete has who engaged repeatedly in a cyclical ketogenic diet who has had nothing but fats and proteins for two weeks. They will (more than likely) be in a state of deep ketogenesis. Furthermore, if they have engaged in repeated bouts of high-intensity, anaerobic exercise for a period of several days they will also have a severe depletion of muscular glycogen in addition to depletion of liver glycogen.
The day and night before the race, this athlete consumes 1000 grams of glucose polymers and about 50 grams of protein and NOTHING ELSE.
Athlete two on the other hand, follows the same training protocols but has also followed a somewhat “conventional” diet of roughly 50% carbohydrates, 25%, protein and 25% fat. This athlete has maintained the same diet and calorie levels consistently for weeks, without a calorie deficit. The day/night before the race, this athlete consumes two large plates of spaghetti.
ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, I would pick the first athlete to win every single time. The supercompensation of glycogen in the first athlete has been shown to improve athletic performance by a large amount.